An Honest Conversation On Mass Shootings in America – Gear Tasting Radio 53

An Honest Conversation On Mass Shootings in America – Gear Tasting Radio 53

While we always try to keep the tone of Gear Tasting Radio somewhat light, this week we wanted to have an honest conversation about the mass shootings that continue to dominate the news cycles in the United States. This is a charged issue for many people, but we attempted to discuss the root causes of these events and how we believe they can be deterred in the future.

These events aren’t black and white issues that can be solved with a single action, but multi-faceted problems that will require open and honest dialogue between all of us.

To have your gear related question answered on an upcoming episode, tweet us using the poundtag #GearTasting on Twitter.

Are you getting more than 14¢ of value per day from ITS?

Thanks to the generosity of our supporting members, we’ve eliminated annoying ads and obtrusive content. We want your experience here at ITS to be beneficial and enjoyable.

At ITS, our goal is to provide different methods, ideas and knowledge that could one day save your life. If you’re interested in supporting our mission and joining our growing community of supporters, click below to learn more.

Discussion

I just want to say thank you for having this awesome, open, and civil conversation. Furthermore, as the husband of an overworked, underpaid teacher, thank you also for not advocating that my wife be regulated into carrying a gun, being trained on firearms tactics, giving her the burden of protecting her students from an active shooter situation, etc. (though it would be awesome if she were into that, she’s not). You guys clearly have put a lot of thought and heart into this discussion and did a great job with it. If only all discussions about this topic were like this!

strych9

A few things real quick here.

1) Funding. I can’t speak for everyone but from most of what I see the reason people get so hot under the collar over taxes paying for school funding is that public schools suck. Every year they want more and more money but the standards keep slipping. Just sayin’.

2) Local control over how the school is secured may or may not work. Some places are just run by incompetent people. However, options are generally going to be the answer. The option to have armed teachers (ones who volunteer for it) is just a singular example. Each building is going to be different and each location will be different in terms of public attitudes etc etc. So, just because I already brought it up, having the OPTION to have a teacher choose to take on additional responsibility rather than having a Federal or State law preventing them from doing so is, IMHO, a good idea. The same is true of lockable doors, security checkpoints, security officers and other options too numerous to list here.

3) Basic First Aid and hemorrhage control should be mandatory for teachers and staff. Sorry, it just should be. If you’re not smart enough to take a day off in the summer and learn how to properly apply Celox/Quik Clot or a TQ then you have no business teaching kids anything. One day a year when school isn’t in session, or even just a Saturday during the year isn’t that much to ask. Just cut out 3-4 Fac/Staff meetings and there’s your time for such a class right there. Further, once in high school this should be mandatory for students too. Health classes can teach it and it would be well within their purview to do so. In my health class we spent a week on STD’s that everyone already knew about and proper condom use. I think we can cut a day off a few things like that and put together a week long package one useful information like hemorrhage control and how to use a fire extinguisher.

Mustang0268 an ITS Life Member

In theory, we the people would only need a firearm, in today’s modern world, if we wished to hunt, either for food or sport.

Because, in theory, we the people have no need of defensive firearms, because at the local and State levels, we have police, sheriffs, and law enforcement to provide us protection. At the Federal level, we have several law enforcement, anti-crime, and homeland security agencies to provide us further, farther reaching protections. Additionally, we have the American military, to deal with threats to our country from a wide variety of threats.

As such, there seems no need for your average American to need a firearm.

In theory, it is inherent to the process of driving an automobile, that avoiding contact with other automobiles and solid objects is a key concept.

In reality, the presence of automobile insurance proves that the inherent logic does not stand the test of humanity. Furthermore, human nature introduces the variables of youthful reckless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and the diminishment of skills with cell phones, age, inclement weather, and the ever increasing anger expressed by people with their automobiles.

So, if the argument against gun ownership is the lack of a true need, that the response to gun violence is to limit gun ownership, and that citizen safety is provided by government, then with respect to automobiles, should we not remove from their ownership, any automobile belonging to anyone demonstrated to have driven drunk? Rescind the right-to-drive to anyone who has caused bodily harm, or negligent damage? Furthermore and finally, if “distracted driving” doubles the risk of having an automobile accident, in which others might perish, should we not take away the privilege of driving, given the risk these people pose to society?

Well, we don’t, not usually. Why? Because automobiles are critical to the livelihoods of these high-risk individuals. Okay, then lets simply require that all automobiles, all of them, have some form of sobriety safeguard, that all automobiles become gradually inoperable (temporarily) when a cell phone is used in the vehicle by the driver, and lastly let’s require the automobile insurance agencies test their insured drivers every two years for driving safety or they won’t be insured. That ought to solve the problem of bad drivers.

This same “logic” is what is being applied to firearm ownership. Restrict, encumber, obstruct and outright deny the right to posses and bear a firearm from all individuals, because of the actions of a few. To paraphrase “the actions of the few outweigh the actions of the many”.

Shooting tragedies, large or small, are the acts of individuals that do not represent the whole of our society or our citizens. The same can be said of drunk drivers killing innocent people, something that could be avoided. We do not deny the privilege of driving, or the ownership of automobiles, to everyone because of the acts of a few people, and so we should not deny the privileges and rights of gun ownership to people, simply because of the acts of a few.

Firearms are, like a car, a mechanical device. Inert, immobile, incapable of action without the one single variable that all great things, and all bad things have in common, people. It is the actions of the individual that must be addressed, through better education (firearms and driving), meaningful mental health treatment and lastly a realistic means of identifying and aiding people in need of assistance before a tragedy occurs.

If the National average for 911 calls, in a dire emergency such as an intruder, is about 10 minutes, and the fastest average responses are 4 minutes, would we tolerate automobiles that had airbags that inflated in 30 seconds, brakes that began to work in 30 seconds, or steering that moved our cars one direction or another after 30 seconds. No we would not. We would not buy those automobiles, we would seek a better solution, something safer, something we could verify would decrease our risk of harm. Therein lies one of the arguments for firearm ownership, the simple ability to protect oneself when the need arises, from threats of bodily harm or death.

Do you have what you need to prevail?

Shop the ITS Store for exclusive merchandise, equipment and hard to find tactical gear.